Previously, the garden hoe has been associated with a laborious and sometimes painful task of weeding. Even so, the hoe has long been a useful tool in the yard and gardening arena. The original, blunt hoe design is also limited in its ability to work soil.
The scuffle hoe was invented as a possible alternative to some of the problems created by the original hoe. Some improvements include relieving strain on the back from lifting and pulling the original hoe. However, the scuffle hoe was limited in its design. Some problems can be seen in the examples cited as follows:
U.S. Pat. No. 5,046,254 to Russell (1991) presents several problems including the use of too many parts. The drawbacks of too many parts include high cost of manufacture and higher probability of tool failure. The cutting blade is only on the front, limiting the action of the tool to forward motion. There are several notches in the blade, making sharpening an arduous task. The handle is shaped so that the force is directed above the blade rather than into the blade. This creates a top-heavy effect, and renders the tool ineffective. Its overall use is limited in function.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,011,062 to Masamitsu (1935), though simple in construction, has flaws in the blade design. The solid blade doesn't allow user to see where the tool is working Limited visibility can result in roots of vital plants being cut. For safety, a user may need to hand-pick weeds growing near other plants.
U.S. Pat. No. 1,895,055 to Steinour (1933) uses a serrated edge, which is difficult to sharpen. Serrated edges tend to get caught in organic matter such as roots and stalks. The blade in this example also is sharpened only on one side. The only cutting action would be in a forward motion. Overall use is limited.
U.S. Pat. No. 1,777,029 to Bradford (1930) uses too many parts. It has some blade surface for cutting in pulling motion, but the scope is limited. Having the reverse blades only on the sides makes working the soil awkward. Such construction misses the focal area being worked by the forward blades. Again, the flat blade provides limited visibility as it works beneath the soil.
Others, including U.S. Pat. No. 5,495,896 to Bojar, suffer from similar deficiencies.
Descriptions of certain details and embodiments follow, including a description of the figures, which can depict some or all of the embodiments described below, as well as discussing other potential embodiments or implementations of the inventive concepts presented herein.
Reference Numerals
11 head portion
12 V-shaped blade
13 outer or forward facing blades
14 inner or backward facing blades
15 side curvature
16 foothold
17 fastener or attachment to handle
18 ground level
19 plane of handle
20 opening of the head portion
21 handle portion
22 curved interface to V-shaped portion
24 start of curve on outer edge
26 start of curve on inner edge
28 curve of connection from arm portion to V-shaped blade
30 inner arc
32 outer arc
34 V-shaped blade with notch